God Is Not Dead movie

Post Reply New Topic

It's almost willfully unrealistic and ironic. The movie feels contrived and directed like some sort of sexual education film about standing up alone to peer pressure.

Summing up the first 10 minutes:

The professor comes out immediately as some sort of ardent stereotypical christian projection.
He begins his Philosophy 101 type class straight off the bat by showing a long list of famous philosophers, and then asking what they all have in common (they were athiests, big surprise ).
He then goes onto a condescending monologue that focuses on devaluing and dismissing religion.

His first assignment is to ask his students to write an essay outlining 3 reasons that belief in a higher god is illogical.
He gives all his students another option to simply write "God Is Dead" on a piece of paper and hand it in so that he can bypass the pointless section of the class on religion.
In return they will not have to write an essay and they will effortlessly receive an A for the assignment.

None of the other students seem surprised by the insensitive professor or taken aback, and they all write down "God Is Dead" apathetically.
The main character, though, seems dismayed , and he tells the professor he cannot go along with this because he is a Christian.

He looks conflicted and self conscious, but he speaks out alone to the authority of his professor and the consensus of his amoral peers .
The way the scene plays out, he is portrayed as the underdog or in a minority that is sincere but marginalized.

The professors tells him that he has only 2 options. He can
either write the essay or he can just sign the paper and they can all forget about this and move on.
If he doesn't then he will have to outline 3 conclusive arguments in favor of the existence of god, and he must present them in front of an impatient class for 20 minutes a day over the next 3 days .

He asks who will determine whether or not his assignment has succeeded, and the professor tells him that he will because it's his class and his rules.

The protagonists then defends his faith by asking "How can I be sure you'll be objective?" and the professors asks if he has a a better idea.
The student says that why not just let the class decide, and then the professors says something really odd and vain and unprofessional like 'why would i want to let them have the power?"

And then the main character becomes more defiant and says "No disrespect but how can I be sure you'll be objective?" and then I turned off my X Box.

Last edited by Widget on 17 Sep 2014, 1:49 am, edited 5 times in total.

It's tasteless propaganda that relies on terrible and dehumanizing atheist stereotypes (from a Christian perspective) in order to transmit its message. Pay it no heed, because the only people who will take it seriously are those already harboring that stance towards nonbelievers. That diseased worldview depends upon self-projecting an oppressed, victimhood complex.

I bought it at a RedBox tonight and I just watched the Unbelievers on NetFlix about the two sort of 'leaders' of the movement for being actively opposed to organized religion instead of just passively athiest/agnostic. While I was watching it I just felt agnostic and like 'Ok, this worldview is probably true and accurate but also feels too detached, do we really a need to be passionate about challenging religious belief.' But I'm feeling more warmly towards the whole movement now and like I want to contribute.

I haven't seen the movie, but I went to a supposedly Christian college and was shocked by how anti-Christian most of the curriculum was. I mean, they pretty much demeaned you if you were a person of faith while celebrating any idea (no matter how failed in history) that was presented.

Sounds like a B movie to actively avoid!

I haven't seen it, but I've read the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

It sounds like a Christian's fantasy - having the opportunity to argue in favor of one's religion against the stereotypical bad-guy atheist. It also enforces the stereotype that atheists are lost souls who don't believe in God because they're angry. Not because of science or philosophy or any of that, but because something went wrong in their poor lives and now they hate God.

Many reviews are negative because the script seems preposterous. However, I had an incident like this in my philosophy 101 course. The course professor was an obvious transsexual female, and she got into a shouting match with another student about the bible. This student would bring a bible to class and sit it in front of him to use as a reference.

I don't remember why they started arguing. She called the bible a "book of lies" and many other things ,etc, etc, etc ... The two shouted at each other for like twenty minutes. Another professor was there but he did not say anything.

Later, I figured as a transsexual person she felt persecuted by religious people and had deep anger about it.

It's just shameless in the way it villainizes the professor with every trait thats actually been wrong with religious leaders throughout history, and athiesm is against.

God's not dead is honestly a very oversimplified poor portrayal of both sides of the argument. Unrealistic and the plot line is dumb too. It's a poorly done film.

My philosophy prof had most of the class convinced he was an atheist after a few weeks. Most of my classmates missed the point of the class, though, which was basically make up your own mind, explain what you think and back it up. He was cool, for the sake of the class, with atheists and Christians alike, but we're largely Christian where I live and most people aren't really going to argue the existence of God in any class, much less a philosophy class. However, if in class discussion you profess some sort of faith or voice any given worldview or take any position on any given topic, you got challenged on it. And that's why he appeared to be a strong atheist BECAUSE he gave every student such a hard time. Most of us were believers, so most of his challenges were anti-theistic, since so few of us would be motivated to make atheistic arguments. However, if you spoke with him in the hall during breaks, you'd know he was a strong Christian and a United Methodist pastor. The point of his class was for us to actually THINK, and I felt he was often frustrated that students just passively swallowed whatever was said in class for the sake of passing the test and getting an easy grade. I wish every college kid took an intro philosophy course within the first two semesters.

I haven't seen the movie, either. I understand that it takes a well-known urban legend and makes a response to that, which ultimately teaches a lesson in apologetics. It seems to target largely Christian and seeker audiences, so as to whether the arguments are well or poorly made isn't the whole point. I've taken courses with profs that held views diametrically opposed to my own, but I've been fortunate that these same profs if they expressed sensational views did so because they WANTED us to think for ourselves, they WANTED us to disagree and argue with them?not out of disrespect, but out of a desire for an exchange of ideas. Are they letting students out in the world who can form an original thought? Do you accept what you're force-fed or do you have a mind you can make up on your own? I've never made it a secret what my views are when it comes to religion, sexuality, etc. But I made a lot of friends back then because I could express those views in such a way that were not hate-filled diatribes, and when we got in those exchanges, it was understood that we hold differing views and we're merely debating our respective sides. At the end of the day there are more things that unite us than the issues that divide us. I don't think anyone, Christian or otherwise, should be afraid to express those views or especially to be made to feel afraid to express them.

As to being realistic, most profs aren't going to go to those lengths, but every now and then you'll hear a horror story. I heard about a sociology prof who told the kids to write Jesus on a piece of paper and stomp on it, the point being it makes us feel the same way people of other cultures feel when we demean their religious symbols, or some such. A lone Mormon objected and things got WAY out of hand, and it sounded to me as though there was some kind of power play going on with the prof. There are ways of handling situations, particularly when a lesson offends someone on a religious or idealogical basis, and the horror stories are examples of when things go badly wrong. So it's not ENTIRELY an unrealistic premise for a movie. Of course, since when has something being completely realistic ever been an absolute requirement for making movies anyway?

Yea, the professor comes across as very intolerant/dogmatic and filled with bitter disdain.

I still don't understand how something fictional can be dead or alive. You know, it has to exist in the first place for that.

Unless you recognize that it is fiction.

they should of made this version of that pasta

I do not believe we can know that with any certainty.

According to those who believe in Him, He is immortal, so it seems somewhat strange they?d use such a title. On the other hand, this wouldn?t matter if there were no believers left, which I guess is what they mean.

Sounds like the movie is a bit like this.

Of course, in this case, a parody could be made along these lines.

Nor can we know with any certainty that J.R.R. Tolkien was not writing about real people and events. The Hobbit is still considered to be fiction, however.